Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: form 3cd :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT Audit :: cpt :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: empanelment :: VAT RATES :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
 
 
From the Courts »
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21

M/s. Godavari Corporation Pvt Ltd., Industry House, 159, Churchgate Reclamation, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20.
September, 15th 2015
          IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI
        BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
               AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                   I.T.A. No. 4547/M/2010 (AY: 2003-2004)
                   I.T.A. No. 4548/M/2010 (AY: 2003-2004)
 M/s. Godavari Corporation Pvt        / Income Tax Officer -1(1)(4),
 Ltd., Industry House,                       Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai -20.
                                      Vs.
 159, Churchgate Reclamation,
 Mumbai-400 020.
    ./ PAN : AAACG1850D
 ( /Appellant)                         ..    ( / Respondent)


         / Appellant by           :    Shri R.S.Chokshi and Smt. M.K.
                                       Patel
        / Respondent by            :   Shri S.T. Bidari, Sr. AR


        / Date of Hearing                   : 14.07.2015
        /Date of Pronouncement : 11 .09.2015

                                / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

       There are two appeals under consideration involving common issue
relating to the disallowance of foreign travel expenses. CIT (A) confirmed
the additions in both the years therefore, the assessee is in appeal before
the Tribunal.

2.     Briefly stated relevant facts of the case for the AY 2003-04 are that
the assessee incurred a sum of Rs.2,62,422/- on foreign travel of Shri D.K.
Agarwal to Singapore. In this regard, it is the submission of the assessee
that Shri D.K. Agarwal, a Senior Executive of the company, represented the
assessee in shareholders meet conducted by M/s. P.T. South Specific
                                      2





Viscose, Indonesia. This is a shareholders meet and the assessee sent Shri
Agarwal for the said meet of the joint venture. The expenses incurred by
the assesee in respect Shri Agarwal's aforesaid foreign travel were
disallowed by the AO rejecting the assessee's contention questioning the
business purposes. While, these are the facts for the AY 2003-04, the facts
for the AY 2005-06 are also more or less the same except the travel was
undertaken by some foreigners and that expenditure disallowed in that
year is Rs. 3,28,433/-. Matter travelled to the first appellate authority for
both AYs.

3.    During the first appellate authority, after considering the submissions
of the assessee, CIT (A) held that the expenditure incurred in connection
with the investment in shares of the joint venture cannot be deemed as an
allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. Again aggrieved with the said
decision of the CIT (A), assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal
for both the assessment years under consideration.

4.    During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee
submitted that the travel was undertaken by the employees of the
company and not by the management or by their spouses.              In such
circumstances, he assessee has rightly booked the said expenses as the
business purposes of the assessee.        On the CIT (A)'s objections, Ld
Counsel for the assessee submitted that the management could not
undertake the travel and in their place, employees were deputed. On the
issue of undertaken travel to Singapore, when the meet actually held in
Jakarta, there is no satisfactory explanation.
                                        3


5.    After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the
Revenue Authorities, we find there is no dispute on the genuineness of the
expenditure in both the years.       The dispute is only with regard to the
employees travelling to shareholders meet where the employees are not
the shareholders. The business purposes of the assesse are not sufficiently
and adequately demonstrated before us. Therefore, we are of the opinion,
both the appeals should be remanded for one more round to the file of the
AO for adjudicating the issue afresh. Assessee shall demonstrate where
exactly the meet took place, why Shri Agarwal travelled to Singapore, how
Shri Agarwal is connected to the shareholders meet when the assessee is a
shareholder in the joint venture company.          Further, assessee shall also
demonstrate as to what is fact on the disallowance made by the AO in the
earlier year on account of foreign travel. Accordingly, grounds raised by
the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.




6.    In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for
statistical purposes.

      Order pronounced in the open court on   11th September, 2015.



      Sd/-                                                    Sd/-
(AMIT SHUKLA)                                         (D. KARUNAKARA RAO)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                                        ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
   Mumbai;               11.9.2015
.../ OKK , Sr. PS
    /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.    / The Respondent.
                              4


3.    () / The CIT(A)-
4.     / CIT
5.    ,   ,  / DR,
     ITAT, Mumbai
6.     / Guard file.
                         //True Copy//
                                     / BY ORDER,
                             /  (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
                          ,  / ITAT, Mumbai

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Custom Software Development Outsourcing Custom Software Development Offshore Cus

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions